2021 (4) TMI 1013 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of natural justice - Unexplained investment u/s. 68 - CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard - HELD THAT - On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the given dates of hearing. Moreover there is a long delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for which the assessee had also not filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating the reasons. Hence the Ld. CIT(A) was left with no other option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. In this situation find no much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR the merger financial resource of the assessee and the nature of issues involved in the appeal in the interest of justice, hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. Appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quantum appeal regarding addition of unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act.
2. Penalty appeal regarding confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Quantum Appeal Analysis:
In the quantum appeal (ITA No. 575/Hyd/2020), the issue revolved around the addition of ?4,95,000 as unexplained investment under section 68 of the Act. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming this addition. The Ld. AR argued that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard. It was further highlighted that the delay was not condoned, and the assessee's submissions were not considered by the Ld. A.O. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed these arguments, stating that adequate opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to appear. The ITAT Member observed that the Ld. A.O. had made the addition considering it as unexplained income, and the delay in filing the appeal was not justified. However, considering the nature of issues and in the interest of justice, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for cooperation from the assessee in the proceedings.

Penalty Appeal Analysis:
The penalty appeal (ITA No. 576/Hyd/2020) focused on the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeal was remitted back for reconsideration, this penalty appeal was also remitted to the Ld. A.O. for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Both appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a procedural remittance for further assessment. The ITAT Member pronounced the decision on 19th April 2021, emphasizing the interconnection between the quantum and penalty aspects of the case, leading to a comprehensive review and reevaluation by the Ld. AO.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the ITAT Member's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes related to the appeals filed by the assessee.